Sir, - I read with interest Father John Medcalf's article (March 25th) on the 17th anniversary of Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination in San Salvador, capital of El Salvador. Father Medcalf was quite correct in his criticism of Archbishop Fernando Saenz Lacalle's acceptance of the rank of brigadier general in an army that was directly involved in the torture and murder of nuns, priests and thousands of civilians.
Although he pointed out the insensitivity to local needs by the present pontificate through its episcopal appointments, he pulled back from mentioning the role played by the Vatican in El Salvador in the years before Archbishop Romero's death. During those difficult times the Archbishop had become a beacon of light for the oppressed, and a figure of international importance as a defender of human rights. Despite this, Pope John Paul failed to offer any moral support to him.
On the contrary, the Archbishop was summoned to Rome to answer false charges levelled at him by the than Papel Nuncio in El Salvador. In the opinion of many clerics working in Latin America, this public humiliation made him a softer target for the army death squads. Even in death he was to feel the wrath of Rome, in its refusal to send an official representative to his funeral.
Father Medcalf's assessment of the role played by Bishop Eamon Casey in the history of El Salvador was greatly exaggerated, as was the importance of Irish nationals as perceived by the El Salvador authorities. Bishop Casey, strong on rhetoric, often grabbed a headline by condemning the US's support of the army death squads but, like many other bishops, turned a Nelson eye in the direction of Rome. He was also, in lifestyle and philosophy, light years away from the Liberation Theology as expounded and lived by Oscar Romero.
I await with hated breath the summoning to Rome of Archbishop Fernando Saenz, successor to Archbishop Romero, on the charge of bringing the Catholic Church into disrepute. - Yours, etc.,
Braemor Road,
Dublin 14.